In the second episode in as many weeks, a Muslim woman was kicked off a city bus in the Danish town of Odense after she refused to unveil her face to the bus driver. The 41 year-old Somali woman told authorities it was the fourth time she had been evicted from a public bus over the past few months.
Her Muslim nigab dress code requires her to fully cover her body, leaving only a tiny opening for her eyes. But this was not enough for the bus driver, who rejected her season bus pass because he could not see if she was the person on the card. According to the Politiken newspaper the driver told her, “I will not drive unless you get out. Out of the bus. Now!”
Although Fynbus chairman Torben Andersen responded that the bus driver’s reaction was unwarranted, others feel he was justified in his rejection due to the grey area surrounding cases such as women wearing a nigab.
Danish People’s Party Local Councillor Alex Ahrendtsen stated emphatically, “The driver did the right thing and I hope that the Fynbus Board and management uphold the decision. Anything else would be grotesque. We live in Denmark, and in Denmark you show your face.”
Danish Transport Minister Lars Barfoed seemed to side with Ahrendtsen by saying if a passenger doesn’t want to show her face, she should simply buy a different type of bus ticket that does not require photo identification.
The muslims have to understand we are cristians and they are in our countrys so if you want our money you must want our culture. So respect our tradicion and take off that thing. Be european or get out!!
It’s called a Niqab – not Nigab. Careful Alex, your imprecision has caused problem before!
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/04/06/long-nato-meeting-snubs-uk-iceland-meetings/#comments
She possessed a bus pass containing a photograph of her face – but was not prepared to reveal the real thing. So – were her actions devout, or provocative? Unfortunately, I suspect the latter.
Identification requirements are not without reason, and should apply to all – or none.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6378863.stm
A commendation is in order.
Good for the driver!
If he allowed her to ride – then all those who don’t hide faces are discriminated because they have to prove that they are same person that shown on their cards, right?
So it’s simple – if a person wants to get some privilege he MUST comply with the rules that “attached” to that privilege (i.e. bus pass). In this case the woman MUST have shown that she was the person she claimed she was. Or be busted.
BTW I think there is a technological solutions for the Muslim women using western conveniences. It could be electronic “tag” – same as used for criminals or suspects – that can be read by scanners to verify the ID without revealing faces. 8-)
PS. I don’t care who believes in what – this is a personal choice and taste. But according to my taste I made a choice to live in the country where women are free. And rules are shaped there accordingly. So those whose choice is different can choose either to move to the country of their taste or live according to local rules.
And as far as I remember women in full body cover must live their houses only with their men. Or use – in some “modern” muslim countries – special buses for women only. But NOT in Denmark (at least as long as it’s not Denmarkastan).
Muslims have swept through northern Europe and have attempted through fear and violence to change it’s culture Muslim. Good bye to women’s rights everywhere Muslims dominate.
So much islamophobia: Muslims have “swept through northern Europe”? No, actually i think they have migrated here in the same way as other migrants and for the same reasons: in hope of economic betterment and often seeking refuge from war and oppression.
A “choice to live in a country where women are free”? If a woman is a free then she is free to choose, amongst other choices, niqab – as little as you or I may like it.
The truth is that none of us are free. In different times and different societies different our freedom is curtailed in different ways. And in many northern European countries today one of those curtailments is that we are not permitted NOT to show our face.
Now there are arguments for this – as there are arguments to back up most other ways in which freedom is curtailed. The main argument in fact is that we have created for ourselves such anonymous alienated societies that we cannot imagine trusting strangers and often struggle to trust anybody.
And the irony is this: that the same alienation is what is ultimately driving the Islamist movement among European Muslim youth. Everybody is keen to keep some distance from the suspect stranger, to clear a little safe space for themselves.
And yet in isolation we long to be able to find others like ourselves to connect with – to have ways of identifying such people and of identifying ourselves to them, that is to create communities.
That’s what i find so sad: that we can’t see how much our so-called Islamist Problem or Muslim Problem is actually a mirror to a larger problem with our societies in general.
I find it rather puzzling that muslims who live in the western world reject our social and moral values, refuse to adapt to them, even try to impose their values on us, yet at the same time gladly take advantage of the benefits of our society (which do not exist in their countries of origin), like welfare money, good healthcare and freedom of speech.
Well i dont think , this was apropriet how the buss driver act , u can tel peopel to get out whit out screaming, but i do agrre that muslim should adapt them self to the culture , of the athers cuntry, know i belive that they are raisd like that , and they grow up whit anather culture that we dit ,and we can do nathing about it , what we can do it just talk too them and make them understhend , that they have to adapt, in the contry they live , i belive that evry body are free to dress how they want , and if they want to cover them self , this is not our problem , i just think that we are all egal , exept our religion , and this is sad, all what i can say , it too try to accept one and athers,i belive if peopel will not be that angry eni more , it will change a lot .
Kieran and elisabeta – please don’t be naïve….
Why do you think that ‘refugees’ traverse many safe countries, in an endeavour to escape persecution – with the objective to enter Europe? Are they seeking safety – or are a significant proportion ‘cherry picking’ the most beneficial destination?
UNCHR illustrates the basis of refugee status – pertaining to post war 1951.
“As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to wellfounded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside
the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear,
is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who,
not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former
habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such
fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
http://www.unhcr.org/basics.html
The 1951 Convention contains a more general definition of the term refugee and it accords them a broader range of rights. Influenced by the 1933 Refugee Convention and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1951 instrument allows refugees the freedom to practice religion and provide religious education to their children, access to courts, elementary education and public assistance. In the field of housing and jobs, a refugee should be treated at least as favorably as other nationals of a foreign country.
Conversely, the Convention also spelled out the obligations of refugees toward host countries. “Too often, the refugee was far from conforming to the rules of the community,” a French delegate said at the time of the drafting in pushing for such an outline. “Often, too, the refugee exploited the community.”
http://www.unhcr.org/1951convention/dev-protect02.html
How wise our French colleagues were – and accordingly – they have enthusiastically facilitated the transference of those exploiters to the UK.
First – this was via the French Port of Sangatte,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangatte
The preferred entry point to the UK is now Calais – where droves of ‘would be’ refugees wait, and persistently attempt to enter the UK by any clandestine means.
These persons are illegal in France. However, the refugees have no wish to remain in France – but prefer ‘richer pickings’
France does not take action against illegal immigrants within their country – but allows their sustenance and accommodation, whilst they attempt further illegal UK entry.
And amongst those that gain entry and ‘sanctuary’– a vociferous continent seek to impose their values on others.
For many years UK has ‘enjoyed’ the epitaph ‘Londanistan’
A prominent UK political journalist encapsulates how ‘Londonistan’ developed as a result of the collapse of traditional English identity and accommodation of a particularly virulent form of multiculturalism.
http://www.buy.com/prod/londanistan/q/loc/106/202161899.html
Banks may prove to be the least challenging crisis….
On Apr 13, 2009, Kieran said:
So much islamophobia: Muslims have “swept through northern Europe”? No, actually i think they have migrated here in the same way as other migrants and for the same reasons: in hope of economic betterment and often seeking refuge from war and oppression.
Why would you want to bring the same culture that you are trying to escape? Or is it just another case of ‘ I want the same rights and freedoms as you but don’t want to give anything for it’. Personal, I believe it IS a chipping away at the non-islamic world by using our freedoms and good intentions against us.
Muslims were allowed to come to europe because there was no understanding of what there cultures are like. Name any muslim nation that comes close to a free place. There are none. The idea that Denmark needs these people is a false idea. How did Denmark survive without them? Was Denmark a better place then or now? Do they save us money in some ways and cost us much more- dole payments, police, special rules, etc. Scandinavia was anice place, now I am glad to be in USA.
We should respect people religions customs and not allow such incidents as in the article. Be good for these women and it will be also good thing for you.